What is it that global warming deny'ers are really worried about? I bet its not science. The data demonstrated in this thread are quite compelling. Disregarding it points to a disingenuous motivation. What should be done about that? The answer to these two questions goes straight to the heart of the matter. Either way, action or inaction, poses difficulty.

My time on the boat is certainly a nice refuge from these realities. It does not however contribute to solving the problem.

"But there were some problems with that graph and the research behind it. Some very big problems. One was that the Medieval Warm Period which occurred between about AD 800 and 1100 along with the Little Ice Age (not a true Ice Age) which occurred between about AD 1350-1850 somehow turned up missing. And as for those Yamal tree samples, they came from only 12 specimens of 252 in the data set… while a larger data set of 34 trees from the same vicinity that weren’t used showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages."

Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles, decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows,[65] the inherent variability of global climate, and reforestation following decreases in the human population. The most recent study found that an especially massive tropical volcanic eruption in 1258, possibly of Mount Rinjani, followed by three smaller ones in 1268, 1275, and 1284 that did not allow the climate to recover, may have caused the initial cooling, and that the 1452–53 eruption of Kuwae in Vanuatu triggered a second pulse of cooling.[12][13] The cold summers can be maintained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks long after volcanic aerosols are removed...

[continuing, with further explanations for each natural phenomena.]

The important point is that none of these natural events now seem to be accountable for the current rise in CO2 and the current rise in temperatures.

Guess it depends on whose data you look at....... according to THIS we are at a very low level of CO2 at the moment...

Then again some sites suggest that a single volcano can blast out more CO2 than all of mankind... when others say bunk to that.

The whole issue is a scam! How arrogant to think the we (humans) have power over the Earth... In fact, I'd bet there is a damn good chance that there were prior "human" civilizations that rose and then fell when Mother Earth shook them off... or you could believe that pyramids were built with oxcarts. Regardless, I won't be around to see it either way. So let me turn up the Air Conditioning, book a cruise on a coal fired ship, fly home on a jet, and buy an SUV...

Hmm, how do you think, in this scenario of yours, "Mother Earth" shook them off? Maybe making life difficult or even uninhabitable for the occupants? Like CO2 levels, global temps, etc. You are talking about an Biosphere, not some mythical being that is all knowing and all powerful. Walk over to a pond and dump some toxic chit in it. Watch how life is corrupted by it. Earth is an biosphere ( many ecosystems) and just like that pond, crap on it enough and it will get corrupted. This is a very basic principle, if you can't comprehend that, then no amount of data will convince you.

Its feasible... Could be that is all down to us treating our 'Council House' like sh*t coz sooner or later the 'Landlord' will come along and put things right.....but with the latest scientific claim that the Sun is about to flip its magnetic poles...

I think it represents ossified thinking, stuck in one world view, lacking flexibility and adaption.

Harsh though that may seem on its face it is not meant to be. We each have our limits. I'm officially tone deaf, my ex-BIL, the musician could NOT understand that. For him it was simple and I was a slacker. Yet talk to him of math and, well, no that's a different story, only weird geeks can get math!

I think it may be like that here also. Some folks can just not accept that the world is changing, they don't have the capacity. They are still nice and good folks, just limited in this regard.

Unfortunately, it seems many of that type do very well in business and politics. Yale or Harvard have a longitudinal study along these lines, called "six America's" or some such thing. Interesting stuff.

Highlights:
Nearly 40 percent of American adults are in the two groups most concerned about climate change – the Alarmed and the Concerned – while 25 percent of Americans are in the two groups least concerned about the issue – the Dismissive and Doubtful.

Different Questions: If given the chance to talk to an expert on global warming, the Alarmed and Concerned would most like to know what the nations of the world can do to reduce global warming, and if there's still time to do so. The Disengaged would most like to ask whether global warming is actually occurring, and what harm it will cause. The Cautious, Doubtful and Dismissive would most like to have an expert explain how scientists know that global warming is happening and is caused by human activities.

Scientific Agreement: While approximately 97% of publishing climate scientists agree that climate change is occurring and that it is caused primarily by human activities, this high level of scientific agreement is understood by only 44 percent of the Alarmed, 18 percent of the Concerned, 12 percent of the Cautious, and 5 percent or fewer of the Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive.

In this update on Global Warming's Six Americas, we report that the Alarmed have grown from 10 percent of the American adult population in 2010 to 16 percent in 2012. At the same time, the Dismissive have decreased in size, from 16 percent in 2010 to 8 percent in 2012. The report focuses on how the six groups perceive the benefits and costs of reducing fossil fuel use or global warming; their support for different national climate change and energy policies; and their beliefs about who has influence over the decisions that elected officials make.
Highlights:

Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating green jobs and improving the economy are ranked among the top five benefits by all Six Americas.

Majorities of all Six Americas say the U.S. should increase its use of renewable energy.

In five of the six segments, larger proportions prefer to reduce, rather than increase fossil fuel use; only the Dismissive prefer to increase the nation’s use of fossil fuels.

In every segment except the Dismissive, half or more favor the elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and oppose the elimination of subsidies to renewable energy companies.

In five of the Six Americas, majorities believe that if they work with others who share their views, they can influence their elected representatives' decisions.

All Six Americas, however, believe that people who share their own views on global warming have less influence than campaign contributors, fossil fuel companies, the media, etc. People who share their views are, in fact, perceived as having the least political influence by every segment.

Five of the six segments believe that large campaign contributors have the strongest influence on elected officials.

Yeah that is the problem. But, what you don't hear from the global warming activists is a message that was being heard back in the 1970's and that was to reduce the Earth's population i.e. Diet for a Small Planet. In fact you have things going the other way because of peoples good intentions. Like Bill and Melinda Gates working on cures for disease in Africa. While noble in thought it will rapidly increase the population in that area and you will continue to see more BBC "Groundhog" day reports about famine in the region every year. Talk about a closed loop environmental disaster. Reducing births especially in some parts of the "underdeveloped" world would be a much faster (9 months) way to mitigate man's impact on the earth than all the climate control talk going on IMO. In western countries this seems to be occurring naturally especially in places like Europe and also developed countries like Japan. In other parts of the world not so much.

In the Third World one of the motivations to have large families is the high infant morality rate. In an traditional agricultural children are an economic asset as they provide a labour and care in one's old age.

The strongest correlations to small family size are the education level of the mother and the level of economic development.

The demographic transitional is difficult because it it easier to lower death rates than birth rates.

And in first world countries the reason to have more children is to get more money on your SNAP and EBT card, and then to vote in people who will give you even more.

What's going to happen when the rest of the world all wants fossil fuel powered boats like we all have?

We need to be thinking of something snappy to say to them in response. I don't think, "You can't have one. The earth's climate is changing. We're grandfathered in because we already have them and like it. You will never know what you are missing so it's easier for you."

See, this is just it. part of the time they deny it's happening at all and part of the time they just deny that humans have any effect. They can't decide, which is a sure sign that their position is based more on politics and emotion than logic.

So one side is based on emotion and the other side is based on logic?

Let me guess, your opinion is based on logic and the people who disagree with you are basing their opinion on emotion?

We need to be thinking of something snappy to say to them in response. I don't think, "You can't have one. The earth's climate is changing. We're grandfathered in because we already have them and like it. You will never know what you are missing so it's easier for you."

good one a bit like "let them eat cake", hmmmmmmm… how'd that work out.

Dave

__________________

__________________Check out my new blog on smart boat technology, networking and gadgets for the connected sailor! - http://smartboats.tumblr.com